[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6097?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16061085#comment-16061085
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-6097:
---------------------------------------
Github user sunjincheng121 closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3560
> Guaranteed the order of the extracted field references
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-6097
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6097
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Table API & SQL
> Reporter: sunjincheng
> Assignee: sunjincheng
>
> When we try to implement `OVER window` TableAPI, The first version of the
> prototype to achieve，we do not consider the table field will be out of order
> when we implement `translateToPlan` method，then we set `outputRow` field
> from `inputRow` according to the Initial order of the table field index.
> At the beginning, the projections in the select statement less than 5 columns
> It works well.But Unfortunately when the count of projections bigger than 4
> (>=5), we got the random result. Then we debug the code, we find that
> `ProjectionTranslator # identifyFieldReferences` method uses the` Set`
> temporary save field, when the number of elements in the Set is less than 5,
> the Set takes the Se1, Se2, Se3, Se4 data structures. When the number of
> elements is greater than or equal to 5, the Set takes HashSet # HashTrieSet
> and which will cause the data to be out of order.
> e.g.:
> Add the following elements in turn:
> {code}
> A, b, c, d, e
> Set (a)
> Class scala.collection.immutable.Set $ Set1
> Set (a, b)
> Class scala.collection.immutable.Set $ Set2
> Set (a, b, c)
> Class scala.collection.immutable.Set $ Set3
> Set (a, b, c, d)
> Class scala.collection.immutable.Set $ Set4
> // we want (a, b, c, d, e)
> Set (e, a, b, c, d)
> Class scala.collection.immutable.HashSet $ HashTrieSet
> {code}
> So we thought 2 approach to solve this problem：
> 1. Let `ProjectionTranslator # identifyFieldReferences` method guaranteed the
> order of the extracted field references same as input order.
> 2. We add the input and output field mapping.
> At last we using approach#2 solve the problem. This change is not necessary
> for the problem i have faced. But I feel it is better to let the output of
> this method in the same order as the input, it may be very helpful for other
> cases, though I am currently not aware of any. I am ok with not making this
> change, but we should add a comment instead to highlight that the potential
> output of the current output. Otherwise, some people may not pay attention to
> this and assume it is in order.
> Hi, guys, What do you think? Welcome any feedback.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
